Dion, Ignatieff meet with Karzai in Afghanistan

[Reccesoldier]

From my analysis, what Dion is suggested, is that Canada should take a slight break from defence and focus on development though the CF will still need to provide security  to CIDA and the like as he feels with this policy the Aghani society can be rebuilt more quickly.  That is his opinion not mine. 

Poppycock!*  

First of all are you privy to Liberal Cabinet meetings?  Secondly would you care to show us all exactly where you get that impression ie. please show sources where he states that position.

Dion and his party want us to pull out of the warfighting completely and have said that it is time for our other NATO partners to step up.  This in spite of the fact that for the better part of 30 years Canada has been doing far less than its share in the alliance.  The Liberals, Bloc and NDP are bed-buddies on this issue only the current government sees the security and moral issues at stake.

To dismiss the defence piece of the tripod is to reneg on our responsibility to protect.  WE have to do it if no one else will.  We can not abdicate our responsibility to the vast majority of Afghanis who want and need the security and stability that armed soldiers in the streets of K'har provide.

* - what I realy want to write will just be "*****"ed anyway

 

[stegner]

Reccesoldier,  you are calling the kettle black and should follow your own advice as you are not privy to Liberal caucus meetings, cabinets meeting are only for cabinet ministers and they are usually part of the government.  Okay despite my assertions that I do not agree with Dion people still think I do.  I am a believer in the Powell Doctrine.  Thus, I think in order to win in Afganistan we need more troops-think a surge.  That is all I have to say on that.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for Mr Ignatieff:

Mickey I. and the drug of ambition
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010630.html

Stegner: Canada has no more troops with which to surge; however the USMC will be doing its bit:
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=205484&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30297

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Clearly we need more troops! I think everyone here agree's that the NATO A-Stan mission is under staffed.
What Dion wants is less troops on the front lines, which will lead to more deaths from air and art.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And what do the Tories have to say about the (Un)Dynamic Duo's visit?

WELCOME TO AFGHANISTAN, STÉPHANE DION
Conservative Party of Canada news release, January 12, 2008
News release link - .pdf permalink

More than a year after becoming Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion has finally found Afghanistan on the map.

And once he’s done explaining to the Afghan people why, before actually stepping foot in their country, he dismissed Canadian efforts to help bring stability and democracy to their lives, Dion should set aside partisan self-interest for a moment and open his eyes to the progress that’s being made on the ground.

Never one to let facts get in the way of a political opportunity, Dion offended Canadians and Afghans, alike, last week – insisting that Canada should immediately notify NATO it will abandon its mission in Afghanistan, and arguing it would be a “travesty” if the mission continued beyond February, 2009.

The real travesty is Dion’s chronic rush to judgment in pursuit of partisan goals.

He did it in vowing to defeat the Government’s last Budget long before he read it. He did it in rejecting the Government’s Speech from the Throne long before he heard it.

And he’s done it repeatedly in criticizing Canada’s role in Afghanistan, long before ever bothering to visit our troops and development workers, or considering the positive changes they are making.

Because of the efforts and sacrifices of brave Canadian men and women, the people of Afghanistan have seen the institution of democratic elections, the stirring of human rights and freedoms for women, the construction of schools, healthcare facilities and the basic infrastructure of a functional economy.

While he’s in Afghanistan, the Liberal leader might want to explore the Aschiana School in Kabul, where Canada is partnering to ensure that children who, because of war, tragedy and chaos, were left out of the school system, are now getting an education.

He might want to speak to Canadians who are assisting with vaccination programs, reaching nearly 200,000 children and women in this country. Or with those who are working with Afghans on more than 27,000 reconstruction projects now underway, including clean water, sanitation and electrical power.

Or he might want to listen to some of Canada’s esteemed men and women in uniform, who are creating the kind of stability and peace that make all of this possible.

And he may want to ask Afghans and aid workers if such progress would have been possible without the security operation?

Prime Minister Harper has appointed former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley to lead a panel of eminent Canadians who will, in the coming weeks, make informed recommendations to the Government on Canada’s path forward in Afghanistan.

By subverting that critical process in pursuit of political gain, Stéphane Dion not only diminishes the hope of Afghans but the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s finest.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

I think the CPC is being a little hard on Dion
do they think its easy to make priorities?

 

[kilekaldar]

Nice to see that this has generated some discussion.

I would like to comment that only the hopelessly ignorant or a liberal/ndp/Block party hack would suggest that LESS troops, and LESS firepower for them would improve the rebuilding. How in the world can anyone expect us to rebuild anything while the taliban try to kill us while we have even LESS means to protect ourselves in mind-boggling.

For that matter has anyone among these geniuses asked the Afghans living in and around Kandahar what they want? Everything I have heard or seen on that topic indicates that they want SECURITY. When you have NOTHING, safety becomes your primary concern. Everything else becomes a 'nice to have'.

Now providing security has fallen to us until the ANA and the ANP can do so effectively. If we can do that, then we can have the stable ground to build.

My opinion only of course.

 

[Good2Golf]

Mr. Wallace,

Thanks for your comments.  Though I am quite curious about them.  I was merely restating Dion's position as on an ealier post someone was asking what did Dion mean with the more balanced approach.  I never submitted anything else.  So kindly defer from your personal attack, as I never said that defence was not an important part.  As you have alluded, defence is required to reduce the threat, as there can be no aid workers without security.  However, there are no aid workers from CIDA or Foreign Affairs in great numbers, because they would not have protection.  From my analysis, what Dion has suggested, is that Canada should take a slight break from overall defence in Khandahar and focus on development though the CF will still need to provide security  to CIDA and the like as he feels with this policy the Aghani society can be rebuilt more quickly.  That is his opinion not mine. 

Stegner, that is exactly what the CF is doing - Battle Group, Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), Multinational Headquarters, mentoring Afghan government, police and military -- all activities to help the Afghans improve their own way of life on the way to complete independence. [Ref: Canadian Operations directly supporting Afghan reconstruction]  That is also exactly what Glyn Berry (DFAIT Political Director to the aforementioned PRT) told me had to be done to help development happen when I spoke with him in Kabul a week before he was killed in Kandahar.  It is exactly what helped progress the development not only in Afghanistan's capital, but at the Provincial, District and Village level.

Letting each person put on their own thinking cap, the battle group involved in combat operations against the Taliban represents roughly only one quarter of the overall Canadian task force.  Independent thinkers might not mind pondering what the other three quarters of the CF personnel are doing....hint: it's not combat operations.  Further hint: it's actually helping rebuilding and development at all levels inside Afghan society.


Stegner, you might benefit by widening your personnel scope of education, because it is not serving you particularly well at the moment.  I certainly found my experiences working along side Afghans in the Nation's capital and outlaying regions to be very educational and indeed rewarding.  May I suggest you read the Afghan government's own website about the Afghan National Development Strategy (important link), a UN-endorsed strategy to facilitate reconstruction and further development of Afghan society.  Beware!  This is the Afghans' own government website about what they are doing to rebuild their own nation, and it may not fit in with what some people or organizations would have you believe is happening (or not happening) regarding rebuilding/development within Afghanistan.


G2G

p.s.  Both the noun and adjective form is "Afghan", not "Afghani" -- an Afghani is the monetary unit of Afghanistan, approximately equal to 2¢.  An Afghan is a person.  The Afghan National Development Strategy is a strategy developed by Afghans, for Afghans, to further develop Afghan society.

 

[stegner]

Please note:

That is his opinion not mine.

Just because I did not refer to Dion as an idiot does not mean I think he is the best thing since sliced bread.  So feel free G2G to email your post to the Official Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, not me.  Sadly,  I have heard FAC's mission in Afghanistan suffered immensely with Glyn Berry's death and only now are they starting to recover.  You would probably know if this rumour was true or not.  I don't need to expand the personnel scope of my education, but my personal education could always use improvement.  An Afghan is also a rug as well as a person

 

[George Wallace]

Once again:

..........  That is his opinion not mine. 

I must say, in my defence, that your posting style does not indicate that.   You are posting as if it is your opinion, and that it is in line with his. 

 

[George Wallace]

FAC = Forward Air Controller

DFAIT = Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

 

[MarkOttawa]

The incoherent and ignorant M. Dion
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/incoherent-and-ignorant-m-dion.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Franko]

Problem with the last sentence....who do they see taking over our spot in Kandahar?

I guess that they haven't figured out if we pull out prior to a turn over to an as effective force or greater the TB will have the upper hand and all the progress will be for naught.

Some people and their short sightedness.....

Regards

 

[McG]

Article Link


Blast in Afghanistan injures 4 Canadian soldiers
Last Updated: Sunday, January 13, 2008 | 2:26 PM ET
CBC News
As the federal Liberal leader was wrapping up a visit to Afghanistan on Sunday, a roadside bomb blast injured four Canadian soldiers in the dangerous Panjwaii district, military officials said.

...

Earlier in the day, Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion paid a visit to Canadian troops stationed in Kandahar, a day after explaining to government officials his policy on getting Canada out of combat roles in the war-torn country.

Dion played a friendly game of hockey with the soldiers to end his unannounced visit that he and Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff began in Kabul on Saturday.

The two politicians also toured a forward operating base in the Zhari region, where Canadian Forces soldiers are training their Afghan counterparts to fight the Taliban.

Canada has about 2,500 troops stationed in southern Kandahar province, where Canadian soldiers have been regularly fighting the Taliban.

The two politicians flew to the airfield Saturday night after spending the day in Kabul, where they met with President Hamid Karzai.

The Opposition leader said his first visit to the country hasn't changed his vision of what Canada's future role in there should be once its current mandate ends the province.

Security, not combat

"The military forces of Canada have a role to play after February 2009 — even though it's not combat, it will be for security," Dion told reporters Sunday.

He said it makes sense to support efforts to train Afghan security forces while emphasizing development and reconstruction, instead of maintaining the combat mission.

Dion said that while Canada should remain in Afghanistan beyond its current commitment, soldiers must focus more on things like women's rights, education and water management.

Both Dion and Ignatieff said they learned during the two-day visit that the biggest successes are development projects led by the Afghans themselves.

Their visit came just a week after the Liberal party submitted its recommendations on the future of the Afghan mission.

A panel studying Canada's role in Afghanistan is expected to report back to the government by the end of the month.

While the Conservatives favour extending the current mission, the Liberals are promoting a revised role that will see Canadian soldiers removed from Kandahar.

.... so, what do our security mission forces do when caught in an ambush if it is not combat?  Roll over & die?

 

[vonGarvin]

Here's the absurdity of their position (re: no combat)
They are trying to tie the hands of the CF in dealing with the enemy.  Suppose for a moment that the CF were not "allowed" offensive combat ops. Sure, as in Kabul, we have guns, rifles, and so forth, but all we can do is "shoot back when shot at".  So, we go about our business, the Liberal Party of Canada community is all pleased as punch.  Still, our lads and lasses go on under the gun, feeling the effect of an enemy that no longer has to run and hide.  W|ould this mean more attacks?  Then a cry for us to "do something?"

In my opinion, their stated opinion makes no sense...

 

[George Wallace]

Actually, I don't think that they realize the fallacies of their plan.  If they are fearful of more deaths of Canadian soldiers, then their plan is more likely to bring that about.  With the caveats placed on them, Canadians would not be able to fight back unless fired upon, allowing the Taliban to gain more control in the Region and plan more effective attacks against Canadian, Afghan, and Coalition Troops.

They would not be saving Canadian lives, but creating the environment for more Canadians to die.

 

[FSTO]

This argument is classical LPC desire to play the middle game. They see that Canadians are split on the mission and feel that they would get more support if they push for remaining in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons (good) not for combat reasons (bad). Sounds a lot like  conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.
What really gets me is that the of the two opposition parties, it is the NDP that has the more realistic opinion. Much better that we pull completely out of there, then for us to stay with both hands tied behind our back. Don't get me wrong I support the operation, but what Dion/Ignatiaff (sp) is proposing is criminally stupid. On top of this is the complete loss of face and credibility that we would lose from the Afghans and our partners in CANAUSUKUS (NATO has a failed) if we pull this kind of stunt.

God I cannot stand the Liberal Party.

 

[Good2Golf]

Watering down ROE's was exactly what contributed to the atrocity of Rwanda. 

Framed in light of how that operation went, I am astonished that anyone would want to go down that path again.  If Dion can't see how poor an option his plan would be, even with all the excellent advice stegner points out that his wife should be giving to him, there is little hope for the Liberal party regaining any semblance of influence until well into the next decade.  Good news for those who take a firm decision on something, whether you agree with it or not.

G2G

 

[observor 69]

This argument is classical LPC desire to play the middle game. They see that Canadians are split on the mission and feel that they would get more support if they push for remaining in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons (good) not for combat reasons (bad). Sounds a lot like  conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.
What really gets me is that the of the two opposition parties, it is the NDP that has the more realistic opinion. Much better that we pull completely out of there, then for us to stay with both hands tied behind our back. Don't get me wrong I support the operation, but what Dion/Ignatiaff (sp) is proposing is criminally stupid. On top of this is the complete loss of face and credibility that we would lose from the Afghans and our partners in CANAUSUKUS (NATO has a failed) if we pull this kind of stunt.

God I cannot stand the Liberal Party.

Yes those were my thoughts also when I heard Dion speaking on the evening news. What does he envision when the school we build is complete ?
$#@^%&*(** is he thinking??    Tthe Taliban are going to all of a sudden disappear ?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Baden Guy:

What does he envision when the school we build is complete ?

Well, we could have so many troops in theatre that they can be stationed at every school, bridge, whatever, providing "security" and waiting for the enemy to attack.  We would not want to be "pro-active" in combat, now would we?

You really should watch M. Dion to get the full flavour of his incoherence:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=QPeriod&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/13/ctvvideologger3_200049762_1200195697_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/13/ctvvideologger3_200049761_1200194168_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:02:53.17&clip_end=00:06:09.80&clip_caption=CTV's%20Question%20Period:%20Liberal%20Leader%20Stephane%20Dion&clip_id=ctvnews.20080113.00230000-00230143-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080113&slug=dion_kandahar_080113&archive=CTVNews

Mark
Ottawa